Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
The Military Communications Wireless Networking

DARPA Wants Extreme Wireless Interference Buster 105

Posted by samzenpus
from the no-down-time dept.
coondoggie writes "This month the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency will begin looking for technology that will let wireless communications work through the most extreme interference. From the article: 'The CommEx program will assess next generation and beyond jamming threats and then develop advanced interference suppression and avoidance technologies to successfully communicate in the presence of severe, traditional, and novel types of interference that are orders-of-magnitude more severe than what are currently addressed by the most advanced systems, DARPA stated.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Wants Extreme Wireless Interference Buster

Comments Filter:
  • by Dutchmaan (442553) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @03:50AM (#33518018) Homepage
    This has drone research written all over it! Take out a signal to a drone and it's as good as shooting it down. It's probably easier to mess with a drone signal than shooting it down as well, but that's just pure speculation on my part.
  • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @05:32AM (#33518498)

    they could come up with some kind of missile designed to go after transmitters broadcasting interference, they'd be pretty loud and easy to spot.

    of course this is probably for drone tech so if you armed a drones as such and programmed them to attack the transmitters if their command channel was blocked the first thing any amoral adversary would do would be to stick an interference transmitter in a preschool with a camera crew nearby.

  • by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:20AM (#33518716)

    As a former ELINT / EW drone, I'd like to make a correction good sir. I can tell you that the GPS spread spectrum transmissions (actually, all spread spectrum transmissions) are not below the 'noise level' - or noise floor. They are quite distinctive on a spectrum analyzer and the link you posted does show this. I say this sitting at the back end of several 20+ meter satellite dishes and do acknowledge that for some receive systems, the transmissions may indeed be below their noise floor - but, to qualify this, if something is below the noise floor, by extension this means it simply cannot be received. Including spread spectrum.

    You are right about the technology having been around for a long time though - decades : )

This is an unauthorized cybernetic announcement.

Working...